The timeline of the Bible

kbertsche responds to me:

quote:

---

It is possible that Matthew messed up and accidentally missed 4 generations in his genealogy, but this is unlikely.

---

When Luke and Matthew have completely different genealogies of Jesus, to the point of one having nearly twice the number of generations compared to the other of which practically none are the same, I think it is more than likely. It is pretty much a guarantee.

quote:

---

If Matthew had not skipped the four generations that he did, he would not have had 3x14 generations.

---

And thus, you prove your own claim false. Matthew was trying to pull off some numerology in order to make Christ appear special. Unfortunately, the number of generations were off, so he simply dropped them.And this is why you can't use Matthew to justify Genesis. Matthew was trying to pull a scam, for lack of a better word.What evidence do you have that Genesis was trying to do something similar?See, we're back to my original claim: It doesn't matter that other passages might be skipping generations. We're not talking about them. We're talking about Genesis 5 and thus we need to understand it within the context of Genesis 5.Is Adam the father of Seth?
Is Seth the father of Enos?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Daniel4140 responds to me:

quote:

---

First the flood was in anno 1657, NOT 1557. You made a 100 year error.

---

Indeed. I already responded to that in Message 5: You did bother to read the posts in the thread before joining in, yes?

quote:

---

The link between Abraham and the Exodus is found in Gen. 15:13, wherein it is said that from the birth of Isaac to the Exodus will be 400 years.

---

But this is contradicted by two other passages: Now, notice your points: Notice anything there? The time from when Abraham is "called out of Ur" to the exodus is 430 years, just like what Exodus and Galatians say.You have Abraham being called out of Ur followed by 30 years to the birth of Isaac followed by 400 years to the exodus. That's 430 years.The 430 years that Exodus and Galatians are talking about are measured from the establishement of the covenant with Abraham. That covenant was established when Abraham was told to leave in Gen 12: Thus, my accounting is accurate: 430 years passed between the covenant and the exodus.

quote:

---

Proof: 2549/7 = 364 remainder 1. It is the first year of the cyle (i.e. the end of the seventh year, the start of the first).

​

...

---

Irrelevant. Please take it elsewhere.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Neither Exodus 12:40 nor Galatians 3:17 contradicts the chronology I give. You just don't understand the Hebrew. I'll give two proofs:(1) 400 from the birth of Isaac to the Exodus is EXACTLY how the ancient Jewish scholars understood it in Seder Olam. And they did understand Hebrew.(2) "KJV Exodus 12:40 Now the sojourning (of the children of Israel, who dwelt in Egypt), was four hundred and thirty years. 41 And it came to pass at the end of the four hundred and thirty years, even the selfsame day it came to pass, that all the hosts of the LORD went out from the land of Egypt."Now, if you will notice the ( ) that I added to Exodus 12:40, you will see that the sojourning dates back to UR of the Chaldees. That is how it must be interpreted in the context of Scripture because the prophecy said that four generations would span the time in Egypt (see Gen. 15:16).Your errors in post no. led to problems. Don't expect me to spot your retraction in post no. 5 in over 100 posts. One's attention wanders with most of the posts being chronological nonesnese.The covenant in Gal. 3:17 refers to Gen. 12:1-3 and Gen. 11:31. The text in Gen. 12:1 reads, "Now the LORD had said unto Abram, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father's house, unto a land that I will shew thee:"Notice that the KJV correctly says "had said" in Gen. 12:1. Notice that the message refers to Abraham's "kindred" and thy "country". That was UR, not the five year stopper in Haran because Terah was too old and lost faith:

quote:

---

"KJV Acts 7:2 And he said, Men, brethren, and fathers, hearken; The God of glory appeared unto our father Abraham, when he was in Mesopotamia, before he dwelt in Charran"

---

I think that X's out your interpretation of Gal. 3:17 as dating from the departure from Charran.You said in post 1:

quote:

---

Genesis 12 tells us Abraham was 75 when god made his covenant with him (1924 years)

---

25 Years to the birth of Isaac (Isaac was born when Abraham was 100)
400 years to the exodus (The prophecy says 400 years from Isaac to Exodus) I notice that you typed "god" (lowercase). Did you really mean to insult the God of the Bible or was that just unintentional?425 years total.You are 5 years short. 425 is not equal to 430. The missing 5 years is before Abraham was 75, when he was 70 in Ur, when he was called just like the book of Acts says.The agricultural cycle is not irrelevant. The lack of agreement with your scripture number twisting is just one more data set exposing you. I won't repeat it here. Others can go back and read my posts.Edited by Daniel4140, : No reason given.

---

Creation 4140 B.C. Flood 2484 B.C
Exodus 1632 B.C. Online Chronology book: The Scroll of Biblical Chronology

Truer words have never been typed.As I think Rrhain has already mentioned, why don't we spend this much energy on a chronology of, say, the Adventures of Sherlock Holmes? It's better reading, for the most part! Rrhain has already, over 100 posts ago, clearly won the debate about the Biblical chronologies showing that Bishop Ussher was essentially right.The Bible is a YEC document that contradicts reality. So yeah, "chronological nonsense" sums it up nicely.

---

"The wretched world lies now under the tyranny of foolishness; things are believed by Christians of such absurdity as no one ever could aforetime induce the heathen to believe." - Agobard of Lyons, ca. 830 AD

quote:

---

I simply want to know if there is a break in this timeline and if so, where it is.

---

I think that says he wasn't just trying to prove the Bible is YEC chronology. He wanted to know if there was a break. There is no break if you compile all the relevant data together, which "R" so far refuses to do. The reason YEC are not together on this topic is that compling all the data correctly produces results that do not agree with a lot of Christian theological conclusions about the Torah. They are more right than you evolutionists, just not right enough to put up a perfect defense.
For example, did you ever wonder why Seventh Day Adventists keep coming up as the source of a lot of creationist arguments? That's because they retain the biblical Sabbath, the seal of the six day chronology of Gen. 1. So accurate interpretation of Gen. 1 and all other matters of biblical chronology is directly related to theology that most Christians refuse to embrace.
For a similar reason, I suppose "R" does not want to consider the biblical agricultural cycle or land reform cycle as relevant. It leads to a certain conclusion about the validity of the Torah that he does not like. Herein lies the opportunity for evolutionists to at least point out the accurate interpretation of the Bible and point creationists to the logical conclusions of their own beliefs, but in order to get very far, you can't make silly errors like "R" does.

---

Creation 4140 B.C. Flood 2484 B.C
Exodus 1632 B.C. Online Chronology book: The Scroll of Biblical Chronology

quote:

---

You do realize that the first sentence is specifically contradicted by the latter, yes?

---

Nonsense.

quote:

---

Direct questions. Please answer yes or no:

​

Is Adam the father of Seth?
Is Seth the father of Enos?

---

Already affirmed multiple times. Please re-read Message 110, Message 82, Message 62, and Message 57 until you understand them.Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given.

You said in post #106:

quote:

---

There's a much more logical explanation: Matthew got it wrong. It won't be the last time a New Testament text misquots an Old Testament text. Hell, Matthew 1 goes on to forget that Jehoiakim is between Josiah and Jeconiah.

​

This doesn't mean that Matthew isn't talking about fathers and sons. It simply means it screwed up the genealogy.

---

You imply that Matthew ACCIDENTALLY left out these generations, believing that he was talking about literal father-son relationship when, in fact, he wasn't.But now you say:

quote:

---

Matthew was trying to pull off some numerology in order to make Christ appear special. Unfortunately, the number of generations were off, so he simply dropped them.

---

You are now implying that Matthew INTENTIONALLY left these generations out, knowing that they were not literal father-son relationships. In which case, his use of "begat" does NOT denote a literal father-son relationship and supports my position.So what is your position on this? Did Matthew omit generations accidentally or intentionally?

quote:

---

Do you not agree that Adam is the father of Seth?

---

Already affirmed multiple times. Please re-read Message 110, Message 82, Message 62, and Message 57 until you understand them.

quote:

---

Do you not agree that Seth is the father of Enos?

---

Already affirmed. Please re-read Message 110 until you understand it.

quote:

---

Do you not agree that the text says that Adam "begat" Seth?

---

Already affirmed. Please re-read Message 110 until you understand it.

quote:

---

Do you not agree that the text says that Seth "begat" Enos?

---

Already affirmed. Please re-read Message 110 until you understand it.

quote:

---

What justification is there to claim that when Enos "begat" Cainan, we don't mean the same thing as when Seth "begat" Enos?

---

Already affirmed. Please re-read Message 110 until you understand it.

quote:

---

Is there a missing verse we don't know about? Something in the description about the life of Adam after Seth and then Adam's death changes it? How?

---

Already denied multiple times. Please re-read Message 110, Message 77, and Message 61 until you understand them.

quote:

---

If the text means that Adam was the father of Seth, how can the exact same description not mean that Jared is the father of Enoch?

---

Protasis already denied multiple times, in which case apodosis does not logically follow. Please re-read Message 113, Message 110, Message 82, Message 77, and Message 61 until you understand them.

quote:

---

If I establish a context and then I keep going without a break, using the exact same words in follow-on imagery, how did the context change?

---

Already addressed multiple times. Please re-read Message 113, Message 110, Message 82, Message 77, and Message 61 until you understand them.

Daniel4140 responds to me:

quote:

---

Neither Exodus 12:40 nor Galatians 3:17 contradicts the chronology I give.

---

Then why do you claim 400 years rather than 430 which both Exodus and Galatians say. Your own chronology comes up with 430 years, too.

quote:

---

400 from the birth of Isaac to the Exodus is EXACTLY how the ancient Jewish scholars understood it in Seder Olam.

---

I don't deny that. I simply point out that it is 430 years from the covenant to the exodus.Your own chronology agrees. You even quote the very passage:

quote:

---

(2) "KJV Exodus 12:40 Now the sojourning (of the children of Israel, who dwelt in Egypt), was four hundred and thirty years. 41 And it came to pass at the end of the four hundred and thirty years, even the selfsame day it came to pass, that all the hosts of the LORD went out from the land of Egypt."

---

Please explain to me how the highlighted portion means 400 years rather than 430.

quote:

---

Now, if you will notice the ( ) that I added to Exodus 12:40, you will see that the sojourning dates back to UR of the Chaldees.

---

I know. That's because it is measuring from the time of the covenant which is when god told Abraham that he would bless him which is also when he told him to get the hell out of Dodge: Exodus and Galatians are referring to this moment: 430 years from this moment is the escape from Egypt.

quote:

---

Your errors in post no. led to problems. Don't expect me to spot your retraction in post no. 5 in over 100 posts.

---

Except I do. I expect you to actually read the posts in a thread before responding. At the very least, I expect that if you claim, "But you said X which was wrong!" and are told, "Yes, I made that mistake and corrected here in this post," then you would be gracious enough to say, "Ah. I missed that."

quote:

---

One's attention wanders with most of the posts being chronological nonesnese.

---

If you detest this thread that much, why are you posting to it let alone reading it? Nobody is forcing you to participate.

quote:

---

25 Years to the birth of Isaac (Isaac was born when Abraham was 100)
400 years to the exodus (The prophecy says 400 years from Isaac to Exodus)

---

It would appear that Genesis has a mistake in it for Genesis 12 specifically states that Abraham was 75 when the covenant was made: This wouldn't be the first time the Bible makes a mistake. And considering that it is a cobbled-together text written by multiple authors across literally hundreds of years, sometimes changing authors in the middle of a sentence, this is hardly a surprise. Since you brought up Genesis 15: But there are more than four generations mentioned: Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Levi, Kohath, Amramn, and Moses.Of course, Abraham is actually 99 when he sires Isaac: Of course, Abraham rounds it off to 100: But he's actually 99. He's simply speaking to the fact that he and his wife are old.So it would seem you're a year off in your numerology and that is why it is off-topic. I don't want quibbling over mysticism to get in the way of counting years.

quote:

---

I notice that you typed "god" (lowercase). Did you really mean to insult the God of the Bible or was that just unintentional?

---

Neither. Consider that there is another reason why I write "god" and "devil" with lowercase letters but capitalize "Jesus" and "Jehovah" and "Satan" and "Lucifer."You seem to think you can read my mind, so surely you understand why.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

kbertsche respond to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

Direct questions. Please answer yes or no:
Is Adam the father of Seth?
Is Seth the father of Enos?

---

​

Already affirmed multiple times. Please re-read Message 110, Cultural and Historical Context! (Message 82), Re: Cultural and Historical Context! (Message 62), and Cultural and Historical Context! (Message 57) until you understand them.

---

I do not see either the word "yes" or "no" in any of those posts.What I do see, however, is you contradicting yourself. Message 110: So here you say that no, Adam is not the father of Seth.But in Message 62, you say the opposite: So here you say that yes, Adam is the father of Seth.Which is it? The questions are very simple. I don't know why you write paragraphs when a simple yes or no will suffice:Is Adam the father of Seth?
Is Seth the father of Enos?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

kbertsche responds to me:

quote:

---

You imply that Matthew ACCIDENTALLY left out these generations

---

"Accidentally"? I said no such thing. I simply said he got it wrong. There are plenty of reasons why someone may get something wrong.

quote:

---

Did Matthew omit generations accidentally or intentionally?

---

Why does it matter why? And even more importantly, why does it matter what I think about why? The only thing that matters is that the Bible contradicts itself.Now, back to the simple questions you seem to be unable to answer:Is Adam the father of Seth?
Is Seth the father of Enos?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

kbertsche respond to me:

quote:

---

Already affirmed multiple times. Please re-read Message 110, Cultural and Historical Context! (Message 82), Re: Cultural and Historical Context! (Message 62), and Cultural and Historical Context! (Message 57) until you understand them.

---

I do not see either the word "yes" or "no" in any of those posts.What I do see, however, is you contradicting yourself. Message 110: So here you say that no, Adam is not the father of Seth.But in Message 62, you say the opposite: So here you say that yes, Adam is the father of Seth.Which is it? The questions are very simple. I don't know why you write paragraphs when a simple yes or no will suffice:Is Adam the father of Seth?
Is Seth the father of Enos?

quote:

---

Protasis already denied multiple times, in which case apodosis does not logically follow.

---

Oooh! Such big words! Too bad you don't know what they mean. I asked you to explain the consequent you were affirming.Is Adam the father of Seth?
Is Seth the father of Enos?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

quote:

---

I do not see either the word "yes" or "no" in any of those posts.

---

This proves that you have not read them carefully enough. Please re-read Message 57 until you understand it and find the word "yes".

quote:

---

Which is it? The questions are very simple. I don't know why you write paragraphs when a simple yes or no will suffice:

---

I have already given you a "yes" and you don't seem to understand it.

quote:

---

Is Adam the father of Seth?
Is Seth the father of Enos?

---

Already affirmed multiple times. Perhaps you do not understand the meaning of "affirmed"? Please re-read Message 110, Message 82, Message 62, and Message 57 until you understand them.

quote:

---

What I do see, however, is you contradicting yourself.

​

Message 110

As I have said repeatedly, the wording of Gen 5 does not mean this.

So here you say that no, Adam is not the father of Seth.

---

Huh?? Your quote is correct. Your paraphrase is not.Hint: see if you can spot the differences between these two sentences:
1) The wording of Gen 5 does not mean that Adam is the literal father of Seth. (my position)
2) The wording of Gen 5 means that Adam is not the literal father of Seth. (NOT my position)My statements in Message 110 are completely consistent with my affirmation that Adam is the literal father of Seth. This has been explained multiple times. Please re-read Message 113, Message 110, Message 82, Message 77, and Message 61 until you understand them.Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given.

Just to be clear. I think your reading is correct. I think this is a list of direct father/son relationships. I just think your reason for thinking so isn't 100% convincing, I'd give it probably about 95%, with the added 5% coming (for me) from the fact that if they're going to skip some generations, why not skip all of them until they get to someone who did something worth mentioning.I like to write fiction, and in so doing, I use a number of linguistic tricks and tools. One of those is misdirection, I will deliberately use a vague term and imply what it means, only to show later that the implication was incorrect. Now, I understand that should not be the case if the Bible is to be taken literally and is a non-fiction book. It should be written as clearly as possible. But arguing that the context makes the meaning of begat as obvious and set in stone as you're arguing is pushing against many centuries of writing style.

The one problem with that is that a large number of those guys in the lists of "begats" show up only in those lists. We aren't told that they ever did more than beget some other nobody who eventually begat his way to a somebody.